Classifying K-12 blended learning

Citation

Staker, H., & Horn, M. B. (2012). Classifying K-12 blended learning. San Mateo, CA: Innosight Institute. Retrieved from http://www.innosightinstitute.org/innosight/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Classifying-K-12-blended-learning2.pdf

Abstract

The growth of online learning in the K12 sector is occurring both remotely through virtual schools and on campuses through blended learning. In emerging fields, definitions are important because they create a shared language that enables people to talk about the new phenomena. The following blended-learning taxonomy and definitions expand upon and refine our previous work in helping to create a shared language for the K12 blended-learning sector. In our report titled, The rise of K12 blended learning, we observed that there were six main blended-learning models emerging in the sector from the perspective of the student. This paper introduces a number of changes to that taxonomy based on feedback from the field and the need to update the research to keep pace with new innovations that are occurring in blended learning. Most importantly, the paper eliminates two of the six blended-learning models: Face-to-Face Driver and Online Lab because they appear to duplicate other models and make the categorization scheme too rigid to accommodate the diversity of blended-learning models in practice. By moving from six to four overarching models, we have created more breathing room in the definitions. We hope these new models will better describe the majority of programs so that nearly all blended-learning programs will fit comfortably within one of the four. Appendix A explains the differences between the new four-model taxonomy and the old six-model taxonomy in greater detail. Two design principles governed the process of updating and expanding upon the blended learning definitions: 1. Develop flexible definitions so that they can still be useful even as the field continues to innovate. The definitions are intentionally broad and open, rather than specific. They set forth basic patterns that are emerging, but avoid setting tight parameters about how a model has to be. 2. Exclude normative qualifiers. This principle is a holdover from the last report. Some blended programs are high in quality and some are not. Some use dynamic content, whereas others have more static content. Some are more expensive than the traditional schooling model; others are less costly. The definitions in this taxonomy leave out such appraisals. Just as a hybrid car can be either efficient or a clunker and still be a hybrid car, blended learning can be both good and bad. In defining blended learning and identifying its emerging models, we looked at examples of over 80 programs in the K12 sector.

Authors

• Horn, Michael B
• Staker, Heather

Reference Type

Report

Keywords

• Blended learning
• Blended learning models